Jump to content

wide-to-portrait zoom for Sony A6000


Recommended Posts

I'm glad I read this, because the 16-70 was on my 'for consideration' list.

 

I suspect the problem is that it's impossible to design a high-quality lens, and with a respectable aperture, in a physical size to match the a6x00/NEX series cameras.

 

Anything with a wide constant aperture and decent zoom range is going to turn into a lens-with-camera-attached. So much for the prospect of high image-quality from a small and lightweight package, that APS-C MILCs promised!

 

It appears that the short lens register offers very little real-world optical design flexibility after all.

 

Maybe Sony and other small MILC manufacturers should consider adding a shutter release to the lens to improve handling?

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the problem is that it's impossible to design a high-quality lens, and with a respectable aperture, in a physical size to match the a6x00/NEX series cameras.

This is the 2nd "Zony" lens (Sony designed and manufactured, Zeiss-branded and Zeiss-approved lens design) that turns out to be a poor performer - the other I am thinking of is the FE 24-70/4 (on which the price dropped significantly since its introduction). It appears that "premium" applies to price only for the 8 "Zony" lenses.

It appears that the short lens register offers very little real-world optical design flexibility after all.

It appears that Nikon does seem to get some good performance characteristics out of their Z-mount lenses as a result of both the large mount diameter and the short flange-to-sensor distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that Nikon does seem to get some good performance characteristics out of their Z-mount lenses as a result of both the large mount diameter and the short flange-to-sensor distance.

Based on all 4 focal lengths currently available? None of which are very compact, and none of which seem terribly ground-breaking.

 

That their performance is due to the size and register of the mount is highly debatable. I see no proof of that assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no proof of that assertion.

Proof? I am not a lens designer and am always skeptical of marketing speak - but they all seem to have better corner sharpness than anything equivalent available for DSLRs - and they do appear to utilize the size and register of the Z-mount in their designs. Sony has equivalent designed-for-mirrorless lenses that don't perform nearly as well - despite the fact that they also make use of the short register but have to deal with a narrower mount. The Zeiss Otus lenses and the Sigma 40/1.4 demonstrate that this type of performance can also be accomplished with lenses designed for DSLRs.

 

 

None of which are very compact,

To keep up with ever increasing sensor resolution, it appears that DSLR lenses have gotten larger with time too. And given the large Z-mount diameter, is it really surprising that none of the lenses can be considered compact? Not even taking into account that the lens designer may want them large to get the desired performance characteristics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was my hope that the (comparatively) larger throat diameter of mirrorless cameras would be used to give us wider range tilt/shift lenses. None of which have appeared on Nikon's 'roadmap', nor in any other maker's catalogue.

 

That, to me, is a total waste of opportunity that doesn't need any extraordinary optical computation. It's a simple engineering task.

The Zeiss Otus lenses and the Sigma 40/1.4 demonstrate that this type of performance can also be accomplished with lenses designed for DSLRs.

Haven't you just countered your own argument there Dieter?

 

WRT compactness: I'm sure most serious photographers would be willing to sacrifice some size and weight saving for better performance, but this completely defeats the object of a small body like the a6000, which is the subject of this thread.

 

The whole point I'm trying to get across is that a short register and relatively large throat diameter have not, to date, resulted in compact and high-performing lenses that match the camera's size and weight. In fact quite the opposite. Those lenses that do fit in with the camera's compact design philosophy have so far been quite poor optical performers. While IQ comes at a huge price, bulk and weight premium.

 

Where are the small Leica-like jewels we were told would be available for our compact MILCs? Basically they're stuck in Leica mounts and only offer manual focus, manual aperture control and no image stabilisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't you just countered your own argument there Dieter?

Not if you consider the size and weight of the two lenses I mentioned.

The whole point I'm trying to get across is that a short register and relatively large throat diameter have not, to date, resulted in compact and high-performing lenses that match the camera's size and weight. In fact quite the opposite. Those lenses that do fit in with the camera's compact design philosophy have so far been quite poor optical performers. While IQ comes at a huge price, bulk and weight premium.

I don't feel I have a sufficient knowledge of all the lenses and their performance characteristics out there. The fact that "Leica-like jewels" that are limited to manual focus, manual aperture control and without image stabilization can be made smaller than lenses that need to incorporate an automatic diaphragm, AF motor, and IS is quite obvious (and not all Leica lenses are compact) - and the Zeiss Loxia Series for Sony E-mount appears to be quite compact as well as optically excellent (and manual focus only). The FE-mount 12-24/4G to me falls into the category of high-performance but compact lenses that are made possible by the short register - the lens weighs 1/3 of the Sigma-made DSLR equivalent. The just now available Nikon Z-mount 14-30/4 is another lens that has no equivalent in the DSLR world in that one can use a normal-size filter on it. There are, and I have to agree with you on that, quite a bit more examples of disproportionate large lenses than appropriately sized compact ones in the mirrorless (FX) world (I can't say I have a good grasp on what's available for m4/3 or for Fuji APS-C, for that matter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They won't fit a Sony a6000

Well, if we limit ourselves to lenses specifically made for the APS-C Sony bodies, then we are facing the same issue we have/had with Nikon and Canon - not much going on at that front. Zeiss came out with the Touit Series early on (not sure how good they perform) - but that series hasn't grown past the initial three lenses. The Zeiss-branded 24/1.8 appears to be quite good - but isn't exactly small. The 16mm and 20mm pancakes are indeed compact but optically not all that great. Sony only recently released a new APS-C body but seem to have not paid any attention to new lenses - Sony appears to be entirely focussed on FX nowadays.

 

IMHO, Sony made the APS-C bodies entirely too small - and then failed to provide high-quality lenses that match that size. The only APS-C body/lens combination that I know of that fits in a pocket is the Ricoh GR (now in its third iteration); but that's not an ILC.

Edited by Dieter Schaefer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a couple of compact AF lenses in Samyang's range. A 24mm and 35mm, both at f/2.8. Not a wide-to-portrait zoom, but reasonably priced enough to take a punt on.

 

Anyone tried either or both of them?

 

Unfortunately the rest of the AF range are the usual massive lenses more at home on a DSLR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I briefly owned the Samyang AF 35/2.8 (as a cheaper alternative to the Sony/Zeiss 35/2.8) and used it on an A7II and A7RII - not as good as the Sony/Zeiss in the corners at f/5.6 and wider, otherwise pretty much at par. Appears to be an all-plastic construction (including the mount). I purchased a demo version from adorama - pretty much half off the price new. The Sony FE 28/2 might be worth a look too - relatively inexpensive and a good performer though not as small as either of the Samyangs. I liked mine but gave it and the Samyang (and a 50/1.8) up when I acquired the 24-105/4.

 

I owned the M-mount Voigtlander 21/4P and used it on my NEX-6 - despite the needed adapter a rather small combo (but with color issues in the corners). Voigtlander recently updated that lens and it is now available in E-mount: Color Skopar 21mm f/3.5. Not as small as the M-mount 21/4P and of course still manual focus only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
The Sony/Zeiss 16-70mm 4.0 zoom is outstanding. I use it and highly recommend it. A little pricey but IMO worth the price. Great zoom range equivalent to 24-105mm with the 50% crop factor.

I 100% agree with you, and i noticed that many people wrote their opinion not out of own experience. I do own some high quality lenses, and neverhad bad experience with the 16-70. I tend to use it with an A6500.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where are the small Leica-like jewels we were told would be available for our compact MILCs? Basically they're stuck in Leica mounts and only offer manual focus, manual aperture control and no image stabilisation.

I have several Leica "jewels," which perform badly on a mirrorless Sony. If you want high performance, you will have to accept larger, heavier lenses. For manual operation, with Sony benefits, it's hard to beat the Zeiss Loxia line (or Zeiss Touit APS-C lenses). While small, Loxia lenses are about the same size as Nikon AIS primes (sans mirror box).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It appears that the short lens register offers very little real-world optical design flexibility after all.

Fujinon engineers seem to disagree:

 

"They achieve advanced optical performance despite their compact and lightweight body by incorporating the benefits of short flange focal distance"

 

Fuji launches two new Cine lenses for E-mount! - sonyalpharumors

 

Mind you, I'm leaning towards Micro 4/3 ATM. I am very impressed with that system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fujinon engineers seem to disagree:

 

"They achieve advanced optical performance despite their compact and lightweight body by incorporating the benefits of short flange focal distance"

 

That stuff isn't actually written by engineers. But by know-nothing advertising copy writers.

 

And a foot-long 18-55mm f/2.8 lens? Such a good convincer that a short flange distance offers more compact lens designs!

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That stuff isn't actually written by engineers. But by know-nothing advertising copy writers.

 

And a foot-long 18-55mm f/2.8 lens? Such a good convincer that a short flange distance offers more compact lens designs!

Well, let's do a loose comparison. Let's take a PL mount Angenieux zoom that's approximate to the Fujinon 50-135 T2.9. The Angenieux 45-120 T2.6-T2.8 covers a similar image circle and covers a similar zoom range. It is weighs 1.95kg. The Fujinon weighs about half of that. The lengths of the two lenses are about the same.

 

This is of course just one data point. You are welcome to look into it further if you like. Keep in mind that the Fujinon is parfocal, does not exhibit vignetting, and has no breathing. And there are further advantages which I won't bother with here.

 

Then there is this statement:

 

Why only E-mount? Fujinon optical designers said that the short, 18 mm flange focal depth facilitated the lighter, smaller, faster design. I can hear my phone ringing as rival optical designers call to refute this—nevertheless, the MK lenses are indeed some of the faster-lighter-smaller-sharper zooms out there.

 

Link: FUJINON MK 18-55 & 50-135 T2.9 Zooms | Film and Digital Times

 

You are not required to accept anything without evidence (or reason if evidence is absent). In fact it's our duty as experienced photographers to ensure that we, and people to whom we recommend equipment, aren't sold on faulty goods or faulty ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...